Is it worth it to live on the cutting edge of every beta, running the dev build of your browser, the pre-release version of your operating system, or first to grab a brand new gadget? Sure, it sounds great, and it's tempting to think that new is obviously better, but when function is paramount, it may not be worth it to jump on every new release.

What You Get from the Bleeding Edge

Many of us jump on the beta bandwagon because of a new feature or performance improvement that's available in beta but not in a stable release—something that we have to have right now. Some of us are just really into technology, and enjoy having the latest and greatest long before it hits the public, like those of us who are already using Windows 8 RTM as their primary operating systems. Photo by Jorge Alberto Mussuto.

Advertisement

The catch to living on the bleeding edge is that you've implicitly signed up your time and energy to fix problems when something stops working—whether by troubleshooting the problem yourself or working with the developer. A beta is supposed to be just that—a time when developers and users test new features, give and get feedback, and fix bugs and errors. When's the last time you submitted a bug report or offered feedback for a beta you were using—or the last time you grabbed a beta for a shiny new feature, and then switched back to stable when that feature made it into the stable release?

It's worth asking yourself: If you're the type who's downloading beta releases of your operating system, beta drivers, testing beta webapps, or grabbing nightly builds of your favorite browser, what tangible benefit do you expect from them? Are you still enjoying that benefit?

Not All Betas are Created Equal: Speed vs. Features

Some betas improve the overall performance of a product, and often it makes sense to use these releases. For example, it makes sense to install nightly builds of popular media center application XBMC for your Google TV because the product is being updated all the time with performance improvements and updated plugins. On the other hand, betas that introduce new features over performance enhancements, like iOS or Android for example, aren't worth downloading every single time—unless you like finding out half of your apps don't work or your device is only partially supported.

Sure, when Apple or Microsoft release a new OS patch, you'll want to grab it, but when there's a dev build of the next OS X or a Windows Consumer Preview, most of us won't install it right away for fear of breaking something. The issue becomes one of risk versus reward: we expect apps like XBMC to roll out betas that—largely—work without major issue, and if there is a major issue, tomorrow's nightly will fix the problem. However, with huge software products like Android, or iOS, or Windows, or OS X, we shy away from those betas (at least on our primary systems) because we know they come with the inherent risk that we'll brick our phones or break our computers because we were too curious.

Is It Still Worth It to Live on the Bleeding Edge?

It was once common knowledge that if you're using betas, alphas, and other pre-release software, you should expect bugs and potential problems, and if you wanted to download them, you should be a willing tester or (particularly in the case of open source software) a developer willing to dive in and help out, then submit your changes to the original developers of the application. Now, thanks in part to services like Gmail diluting the meaning of "beta", to many a beta sticker reads more like "NEW!" It's like the "Grand Opening" sign on that gas station down the block—the one that's been "opening" for the past year.

It's important to remind yourself that choosing to run bleeding edge software also means you're willing to play Russian roulette with your productivity.

When we tossed the question around Lifehacker HQ, many of us confessed that we enjoyed new, beta features as soon as they're available, but as app categories like browsers or to-do apps mature, the tangible benefits from a beta are fewer than ever. It's our job to be the canary in the coalmine, and we do it gladly, but there's a point of diminishing returns for most people where the bleeding edge just isn't worth it. When's the last time you got a new feature in a Chrome beta you just couldn't live without? Now remember the last time a Chrome beta broke one of your favorite sites. Odds are the latter happens more often than the former.

Some developers use the beta tag as a shield so they can change things and avoid accountability to their users—the Gmail "beta" started that trend: stay in beta for years but make your beta public, amass thousands of users (or millions in Gmail's case), make changes at any time, and if it breaks something you get to say "well, we are in beta after all." Lately the trend in webapps has been the same: launch a public beta before your product is even close to finished so users feel they're getting features that were on your roadmap from the beginning. Once all that development is finished though, does the beta continue? Was it worth it to participate, or would it have been better to wait until the tool was finished?

Ultimately, it's a matter of individual taste: if you feel that bleeding edge applications have given you work-changing features faster than you would normally get them, and you're enjoying the benefits more than you've suffered the detriments, then great. At the same time, as our own Adam Pash pointed out, "The more time I spend in technology, the less excited I am about the bleeding edge—not because it's not worthwhile, but because my priorities have changed. More often than not, my time is more valuable to me than that shiny new feature."

So, when it comes to bleeding edge software, what are your priorities?